AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Aaron J. McKim for the degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Education presented
on April 30, 2013
Title: The Teacher Efficacy of Early Career Agriculture Teachers in Five Western States
Abstract approved:
________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan J. Velez
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between three
teacher development experiences and early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy.
Additionally this study sought to define the relationship between five teacher efficacy
constructs and career commitment among early career agriculture teachers in five western
states. A census of all agriculture teachers in their first five years of teaching schoolbased agriculture in California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington was attempted.
Early career teachers’ perceptions of the impact of three teacher development
experiences, agriculture teacher preparation, student teaching and professional
development experiences, were measured. Five areas of teacher efficacy were measured:
classroom management, instructional strategies, leadership of students, ability to teach
science and ability to teach math. This study found that math and science teaching
efficacy were the lowest efficacy areas for these early career agriculture teachers. The
perceptions of the impact of teacher development experiences were significantly related
to teacher efficacy in the majority of teacher efficacy areas. Additionally, this study
found that the five teacher efficacy areas measured were all significantly correlated with
career commitment. These findings led the researcher to conclude that increased efforts
need to be made to improve early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy in math and
science teaching. Additionally, the researcher concludes that agriculture teacher
preparation, student teaching and professional development experiences are significant to
the development of these early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy. Lastly, classroom
management efficacy, instructional strategies efficacy, leadership of students efficacy,
ability to teach science efficacy and ability to teach math efficacy are all significant
components to the retention of these early career agriculture teachers; therefore, future
research should investigate specific experiences that related to increased agriculture
teacher efficacy in those five areas.
©Copyright by Aaron J. McKim
April 30, 2013
All Rights Reserved
The Teacher Efficacy of Early Career Agriculture Teachers in Five Western States
by
Aaron J. McKim
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Science
Presented April 30, 2013
Commencement June, 2013
Master of Science thesis of Aaron J. McKim presented on April 30, 2013.
APPROVED:
___________________________________________________________________
Major Professor, representing Agricultural Education
____________________________________________________________________
Head of the Department of Agricultural Education and Agricultural Sciences
______________________________________________________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent college of Oregon State
University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader
upon request.
________________________________________________________________________
Aaron J. McKim, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful for my wife Lauren. I could not have asked for a better
person to take this journey with. I would like to thank my parents, Denzil and Shirley
McKim for their continued support throughout my education. I would also like to thank
Dr. Jonathan Velez for all the support, advice, editing and guidance during my research
and studies while at Oregon State University. Finally, I would like to thank the additional
members of my committee Dr. Thompson, Dr. Lambert and Dr. Cusimano.
CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS
Dr. Jonathan Velez assisted with data collection, editing of my thesis and
interpretation of the data.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1………
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 6
Research Objectives ........................................................................................................ 6
Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 6
Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 7
Delimitations of the Study............................................................................................... 8
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature .......................................................................... 11………
Social Learning Theory ................................................................................................. 11
Self-Efficacy Theory and the Cognitive Emphasis ....................................................... 13
The Development of Self-Efficacy ............................................................................... 15
Teacher Efficacy ........................................................................................................... 18
Teacher Efficacy in Agricultural Education.................................................................. 21
Development of Agriculture Teacher Efficacy ............................................................. 21
Agriculture Teacher Efficacy and Career Commitment ............................................... 25
Agriculture Teacher Efficacy and Years of Experience................................................ 26
Chapter 3: Research Methods ........................................................................................... 36………
Type of Research ........................................................................................................... 36
Population and Subject Selection .................................................................................. 36
Outcome Measures ........................................................................................................ 37
Instrument Validity and Reliability ............................................................................... 38
Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
Page
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 42………
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion & Recommendations............................................... 55………
Discussion & Recommendations: Classroom Management Efficacy ........................... 60
Discussion & Recommendations: Instructional Strategies Efficacy ............................. 61
Discussion & Recommendations: Leadership of Students Efficacy ............................. 62
Discussion & Recommendations: Ability to Teach Science Efficacy .......................... 64
Discussion & Recommendations: Ability to Teach Math Efficacy .............................. 65
Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................... 67
Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................ 68
References ......................................................................................................................... 69………
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 75………
…Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 75………
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 82………
…IRB Notice of Approval ................................................................................................ 82………
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 1: Three reciprocal determinants of human action .................................................. 2………
Figure 2: Conceptual model of the study .......................................................................... 35............
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Table 1: Previous Agriculture Teacher Efficacy Research ............................................... 29………
Table 2: Reliabilities of Teacher Efficacy Constructs ...................................................... 39………
Table 3: Reliabilities of Teacher Development Experiences ............................................ 39………
Table 4: Response Rates by State ..................................................................................... 42………
Table 5: Respondents’ Teacher Efficacy .......................................................................... 45………
Table 6: Perceived Impact of Teacher Development Experiences on Respondents’
Teaching Strategies ........................................................................................................... 46………
Table 7: Correlations of Teacher Efficacy Variables and Career Committment .............. 48………
Table 8: Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Classroom Management
Efficacy ............................................................................................................................. 50………
Table 9: Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Instructional Strategies
Efficacy ........................................................................................................................... 51………
Table 10: Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Leadership of Students
Efficacy ............................................................................................................................. 52………
Table 11: Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Ability to Teach
Science Efficacy ............................................................................................................... 53………
Table 12: Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Ability to Teach Math
Efficacy ............................................................................................................................ 54………
The Teacher Efficacy of Early Career Agriculture Teachers in Five Western States
Chapter 1: Introduction
The self-efficacy of a teacher (teacher efficacy) has continually been found to be
associated with the success and/or failure of a teacher. Previous research into teacher
efficacy has found it to be a strong predictor of many essential aspects of the teaching
profession including, but not limited to, a teachers’ commitment to stay in the profession,
ability to persist when working with difficult students and enthusiasm about their career
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). The teacher efficacy of school-based
agriculture teachers has been linked to a major issue facing the profession maintaining an
adequate supply of teachers (Knobloch & Whittington, 2003a; Swan, 2005). For many
years a shortage of agriculture teachers has been a concern for the agriculture teaching
profession (Kantrovich, 2010). This study seeks to further the understanding of the
development of teacher efficacy in school-based, early career agriculture teachers as well
as the relationship between teacher efficacy and career commitment.
The concept of efficacy has its origins in the Social Learning Theory. In his book
Social Learning Theory Albert Bandura advocated a new way of looking at human
action, using three reciprocal determinants: behavior, personal factors and environmental
factors, illustrated in Figure 1 (Bandura, 1977a; 1986). In 1986 Albert Bandura coined
the now widely used definition of self-efficacy, stating that self-efficacy refers to
“Peoples judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action
required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391).
2
Throughout his research Bandura has emphasized cognitive processes as a factor
in determining human behavior. Part of this cognitive emphasis was the introduction of
self-efficacy, an individual’s cognitive judgment of their abilities to successfully
complete a task. The focus on these cognitive processes led Bandura to change the name
of his theory from Social Learning Theory to Social Cognitive Theory in 1986 (Bandura,
1986).
Behavior
Reciprocal
Nature of
Determinants
Personal Factors
(Cognitive, affective,
and biological
events)
Environmental
Factors
Figure 1. Three reciprocal determinants of human action (Bandura, 1977a; 1977b; 1986)
Bandura postulated that an individual’s self-efficacy can be improved through
four types of experiences: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, physiological and
emotional states and social persuasion (Bandura 1977a; 1986). Mastery experiences refer
to a person’s belief that success in a prior experience will lead to success in similar future
tasks. Vicarious experiences, watching someone else successfully perform an anticipated
experience, can also develop an individual’s self-efficacy. Positive social persuasion,
hearing positive comments towards yourself, or a group that you are a part of, also has
the potential to increase self-efficacy. Finally physiological and emotional states,
3
specifically the type of emotion when contemplating a particular action will influence an
individual’s self-efficacy towards completing that action (Bandura, 1986; 1993).
One of the primary goals of this research is to further the understanding of the
development of teacher efficacy by investigating the relationship between theorized
efficacy building experiences during the teacher development process and early career
agriculture teachers’ efficacy. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy (1998)
established the connection between teacher efficacy and the teacher development process.
These researchers acknowledged that vicarious experiences are prevalent in the teacher
development experience; an example of this is watching peers teach a variety of lessons
during peer teaching activities. Social persuasion was also identified as a common
occurrence throughout a pre-service teacher’s development. These experiences range
from a “good job” mentioned after a peer teaching exercise to formal communication
between student teacher and cooperating teacher. Furthermore, the student teaching
experience has often been studied as the primary efficacy building experience due to the
abundance of mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion and
physiological and emotional states (Harlin, Robert, Briers, Mowen & Edgar, 2007;
Knobloch, 2006; Roberts, Harlin & Ricketts, 2006; Whittington, McConnell &
Knobloch, 2006; Wolf, Foster & Birkenholz, 2010).
After the formal teacher development process ends and teachers enter the
profession a variety of experiences can be identified as efficacy builders including
teaching experience, comments from fellow teachers, self-identified success and
professional development experiences. This study will focus on the development of
teacher efficacy through three experiences identified as being controlled, to some extent,
4
by teacher development programs, these experiences are: agriculture teacher preparation
classes, student teaching and agriculture teacher focused professional development
experiences. This study will then take the idea of teacher efficacy a step further and
investigate the relationship between teacher efficacy and career commitment.
Statement of the Problem
A chronic shortage of secondary Agriculture teachers has been identified by the
National Study of the Supply and Demand for Teachers of Agricultural Education (2010).
The most recent release of this study encapsulated the ongoing issue of a teacher shortage
stating: “…regardless of the time span we are seeing a trend downward (supply of
secondary Agricultural Educators) while a need continues to exist…” (Kantrovich, 2010,
p. 42). In order to understand the magnitude of this problem we must look at the number
of programs that were forced to close due to a lack of a qualified teacher: 21 in 2009, 40
in 2006, 35 in 2001, 55 in 1998 and 41 in 1995 (only years in which such data were
collected). This study also found that in 2009 44% of agriculture teacher positions were
filled by individuals without formal agriculture teacher training, including a total of 390
emergency/alternative certifications.
There are two major sides to the agriculture teacher shortage issue, recruitment
and retention, this study will focus on retention, specifically retention of early career
agriculture teachers. In order for agriculture teachers to be retained in the profession they
must feel confident in their ability to be a successful teacher. This study, along with many
others in the field of agricultural education, has operationalized self-confidence in one’s
teaching abilities as teacher efficacy (Knobloch, 2006; Stripling, 2005; Wolf, 2008).
5
Exploring the relationships between teacher development experiences and the efficacy of
early career agriculture teachers will offer insight into how teacher development
programs can strengthen the teacher development process to build efficacy in early career
agriculture teachers, which will then in turn improve the retention of these teachers.
Established teacher efficacy can have a profound impact on the success of an
agriculture teacher, especially those teachers early in their career. Numerous challenges
faced by early career agriculture teachers have been identified as potential barriers to
career commitment (Mundt & Connors, 1999; Talbert, Camp & Heath-Camp, 1994;
Wolf, 2008). Early in the development of the concept of self-efficacy it was recognized
that strengthening self-efficacy increases an individual’s persistence in overcoming
challenges when facing a given task (Bandura, 1977a; 1977b, 1986). Some of the
research discovered challenges early career agriculture teachers face are; classroom
instruction (Mundt & Connors, 1999; Wolf, 2008), classroom/laboratory management
(Mundt & Connors, 1999; Talbert, et al., 1994), leadership of students through
educational programs like the FFA and SAEs (Mundt & Connors, 1999; Wolf, 2008) and
“shifts” in the educational landscape such as the current emphasis on the integration of
math and science across all curriculums including agriculture (Layfield, Minor &
Waldvogel, 2001; Parr, Edwards & Leising, 2008). Increased efficacy in essential areas
of agriculture teacher success could potentially empower early career agriculture teachers
to tackle the challenges associated with teaching agriculture as opposed to leaving the
profession.
6
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to describe the relationship between agriculture
teacher development experiences and early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy.
Additionally, the relationship between early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy and
career commitment will be explored.
Research Objectives
1.) Describe the demographic characteristics of early career agriculture teachers in
five western states.
2.) Describe the teacher efficacy of early career agriculture teachers in five western
states.
3.) Describe the perceived impact of identified teacher development experiences on
early career agriculture teachers in five western states.
4.) Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy and career commitment for
early career teachers in five western states.
5.) Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy and the perceived impact of
teacher development experiences for early career teachers in five western states.
Significance of the Study
The knowledge gained through this study will benefit the agriculture teaching
profession by providing additional understanding of the teacher efficacy of early career
7
agriculture teachers in five western states, a geographic region lacking agriculture teacher
efficacy research. This study will be the first to investigate current agriculture teachers’
efficacy in: leadership of students, ability to teach math and ability to teach science, three
areas hypothesized as being essential to the career commitment of an early career
agriculture teacher. The information regarding current agriculture teachers’ efficacy in
teaching math and science concepts is especially timely with the current educational shift
towards the integration of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
throughout education (Sanders, 2009).
This study will provide insight into early career agriculture teachers’ commitment
to stay in the agriculture teaching profession and the relationship of that career
commitment to five teacher efficacy areas: instructional strategies, classroom
management, ability to positively lead students, ability to teach math and the ability to
teach science.
Finally, the relationship between teacher development experiences and early
career agriculture teachers’ efficacy will provide useful insight into which teacher
development experiences relate to higher teacher efficacy. Recommendations will be
made, based on these findings, for strategies to develop teacher efficacy through these
three experiences.
Limitations of the Study
This study will rely on respondents completing the questionnaire in an honest and
timely manner. The research is also limited by the agriculture teacher directory for each
state and/or the leader in agricultural education providing a complete and accurate list of
8
current agriculture teachers in their state teaching in their first through fifth year. The
final limitation of this study is the reliability and effectiveness of the questionnaire to
provide tangible data in order to meet the research objectives of this study.
Delimitations of the Study
This study will be delimited to school-based agriculture teachers, in their first
through fifth year of teaching in five western states: California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and
Washington during the 2012-2013 school year. The results of this study will not be
generalizable to any other population due to the census nature of the study.
This study will be delimited to an examination of teacher efficacy in the following
areas: instructional strategies, classroom management, leadership of students, ability to
teach science and ability to teach math. Teachers’ efficacy in other areas is vitally
important to the success of the agriculture teaching profession but it will not be
considered by this study.
This study will be delimited to an examination of teachers’ perception of the
impact of three teacher development experiences: agriculture teacher preparation classes,
student teaching and professional development experiences. The researcher recognizes
that a variety of additional experiences impact current teachers and their strategies. The
three identified experiences were selected based on their ability to be changed and/or
improved by an agriculture teacher development program.
9
Definition of Terms
Career Commitment: In this study career commitment refers to the respondents’ average
score of two questions rated on a scale ranging from one to six (1=No Confidence,
6=Extreme Confidence). Question 1: How confident are you that you will be a schoolbased agriculture teacher in five (5) years? Question 2: How confident are you that you
will be a school-based agriculture teacher in ten (10) years?
Impact: In this study impact refers to the respondents’ perception of the value to which
teacher development experiences affect their current strategies as teachers.
Teacher Development Experiences: Three teacher development experiences are measured
in this study: agriculture teacher preparation classes, student teaching and professional
development experiences. These specific items were selected because they offer the most
potential for change by an agriculture teacher development program at a college or
university.
Teacher Efficacy: A teacher’s judgment of their capabilities to successfully execute the
actions necessary to accomplish a specific teaching task. Other studies may refer to this
as teacher self-efficacy.
10
Agriculture Teacher Efficacy Constructs: Five teacher efficacy areas were reviewed in
this study based on the assessment of the related literature: instructional strategies,
classroom management, leadership of students, ability to teach science and ability to
teach math.
Early Career Agriculture Teachers: Teachers in their first through fifth year of teaching in
five western states: California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington during the 20122013 school year.
Agriculture Teacher Preparation: Classes taken in college focused on teaching methods
and strategies specific to agriculture teachers.
11
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
Social Learning Theory
Albert Bandura launched the Social Learning Theory in 1977 as a way of
explaining human action using a model of three reciprocal determinants (Bandura,
1977a). Bandura’s reciprocal determinism seeks to anticipate and explain human action
using three constructs: behavior, personal factors and environmental factors. In order to
understand Bandura’s theory we must first understand each of these determinants and
their subsequent interaction.
Behavior
Through the Social Learning Theory Bandura postulated that behavior alone
cannot determine human action. Bandura’s view challenged many theorist of the day
including John Watson. Years before Bandura, Watson established the concept of
behaviorism. Behaviorists, like Watson viewed the development of human behavior
through a life-spanning series of individual action and the response from that action
(Crosbie-Burnett & Lewis, 1993). Behaviorists argued that human action is learned
and/or altered through the consequences of past behavior. Bandura’s Social Learning
Theory accepts human behavior as a determinant, but only when it’s reciprocal
interactions with the environment and personal factors are considered (Bandura, 1977a).
12
Personal Factors
Bandura realized that personal factors play a major role in human action. Personal
factors should be broken into three types: affective, cognitive and biological (Bandura,
1977a). Affective factors include: expectations, beliefs, self-perceptions, goals, intentions
and emotions. Cognitive factors include: efficacy and outcome expectations. Biological
factors include: sex, age, ethnicity, temperament and genetic predisposition. The
individuality created by our varying personal factors contributes to the vast array of
human action, but personal factors alone cannot predict or explain human action
(Bandura, 1977a; 1986).
Environment
The environment that we are in, have been in and anticipate being in will also
play a role in determining our action. Individuals’ behavior and personal factors have the
opportunity to both impact our environment and to be impacted by our environment
(Bandura, 1977a; 1978). Therefore our environment is a continuous timeline of potential.
Through the reciprocal interaction with our behavior and personal factors we develop our
potential environment, as that environment develops it reciprocates change in our action
(Bandura, 1977a). An example of this would be a teacher choosing to acknowledge a pair
of students chatting in the corner of the classroom, by choosing to acknowledge the
student’s disruption the teacher creates a new environment in the classroom. This new
environment will change the actions of the teacher, for example due to a quieter
classroom the teacher may give instructions to the class using a more pleasant tone.
13
Interaction between Personal Factors and Behavior
An individual’s outcome expectancy for a particular task will influence how they
behave throughout that given task. The actual outcome, determined by their behavior will
in turn influence their efficacy towards accomplishing a similar task in the future
(Bandura 1977a; 1978).
Interaction between Behavior and Environment
An individual’s behavior in any given environment will produce a change in that
environment. The subsequent changes to the environment will alter the way they behave
in their current and future environments (Bandura, 1978).
Interaction between Personal Factors and Environment
The way an individual’s environment responds to them will impact their selfconception. Additionally an individual’s personal goals and intentions will influence their
willingness to interact with and alter their environment (Bandura, 1977a; 1978).
Self-Efficacy Theory and the Cognitive Emphasis
A major focus of the Social Learning Theory throughout its history has been the
concept of self-efficacy. Bandura’s earliest definition of self-efficacy is found in his 1977
book outlining The Social Learning Theory: “An efficacy expectation is the conviction
that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (p.79).
Bandura goes on to clarify that self-efficacy is part of the cognitive process inherent in
the reciprocal interaction between personal factors and behavior and consequently human
14
behavior, thus linking self-efficacy to the Social Learning Theory and reciprocal
determinism (Bandura 1977a; 1978).
In 1986 Bandura redefined self-efficacy in order to distinguish his theory from
other concepts of the day. Bandura’s 1986 definition of self-efficacy states: “Peoples
judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain
designated types of performances” (p. 391). This definition better differentiates selfefficacy from outcome expectancy, and is used more often today to describe self-efficacy.
The distinction between outcome expectancy and self-efficacy is important to
understanding this transition. Outcome expectancy is an individual’s belief that certain
behaviors will lead to a favorable outcome. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief
that they possess the skills needed to complete a specific behavior (Bandura, 1977b).
The year 1986 also saw the change of Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. In 1986
Bandura changed the name of the theory from Social Learning Theory to the Social
Cognitive Theory to add emphasis to the cognitive processes essential to his reciprocal
determinism model (Bandura, 1986).
Bandura, using his theory of self-efficacy, set out to explain the role of efficacy in
human action. Bandura focused his initial research on the relationship between selfefficacy and persistence when an individual encounters challenges. Bandura found that an
individual with a high self-efficacy is more likely to cope with a challenge, put more
effort forth when they encounter challenges and sustain their effort longer than those
individuals with a lower self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977b). Through this work Bandura
connected self-efficacy and an individual’s ability to cope with a given challenge. This
connection led to the discovery that individuals with a low self-efficacy and therefore low
15
coping ability will often avoid experiences when they perceive the experience will push
them past their ability to cope. Likewise a high coping skill set will increase an
individual’s overall self-efficacy towards challenging experiences due to successful
experiences overcoming challenges using their persistence and coping skills (Bandura,
1977b). Bandura’s realization forms the foundation for the relationship between career
commitment and teacher efficacy sought through this study. Based on Bandura’s concept
of self-efficacy it can be hypothesized that those early career teachers’ with a lower
teacher efficacy will be more likely to perceive the challenges associated with teaching
agriculture as a career deterrent, and therefore have a lower career commitment score
when compared to those early career teachers with a higher teacher efficacy.
The Development of Self-Efficacy
Bandura postulated that an individual’s self-efficacy can be developed through
four types of experiences: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion
and physiological and emotional states (Bandura 1977a; 1977b, 1986).
Mastery Experiences
Successful accomplishment of a task will lead to the greatest increase in an
individual’s self-efficacy towards the completion of a similar task. Continuous success in
a given task will lead to a substantial level of self-efficacy that singular negative
experiences will not affect. Alternatively, continuous failures or negative experiences will
lead to a similarly staunch self-efficacy on the opposite end of the spectrum. This
negative self-efficacy rut will often result in an individual avoiding the task in the future.
16
This was the foundation behind Bandura’s emphasis on the beginning of an experience,
because the beginning of the experience is critical to the creation of a substantial positive
or negative self-efficacy towards that experience. Positive results will lead to continued
success as self-efficacy continues to rise. Negative early experiences will push many
individuals, especially those with low coping skills, out of the experience entirely.
This study recognizes the presence of mastery experiences in the three agriculture
teacher development experiences: agriculture teacher preparation classes (peer teaching),
student teaching and potentially professional development experiences, depending on the
type of professional development.
Vicarious Experiences
Observing others successfully complete an anticipated task has the potential to
raise self-efficacy, especially if the individual completes the task either without the
observer’s predicted challenges or by overcoming the observer’s predicted challenges.
Vicarious experiences are not as powerful self-efficacy builders when compared to
mastery experiences. It is important, however, to note that if an individual has not yet had
a mastery experience, the role of observing another successfully accomplish the proposed
task will significantly raise the inexperienced individual’s self-efficacy. The impact of
self-efficacy through vicarious experiences also varies based on the perception of
similarity of the observer to the individual they are observing. An individual who they
perceive as having similar personal factors and in a similar environment will have a
greater impact on self-efficacy than someone who they perceive to have significantly
different determinants (Bandura, 1977b; 1986). Based on Bandura’s concept of vicarious
17
experiences it can be rationalized that agriculture teacher preparation classes (peer
teaching, classroom visits), student teaching (observing cooperating teacher) and
professional development experiences (teacher led workshops, discussion about
successes in the classroom) all contain the potential for positive vicarious experiences.
Social Persuasion
An individual’s self-efficacy can be increased through social persuasion, or
hearing from someone that you have the skills necessary to accomplish a given task.
Social persuasion lacks the efficacy improving power of master and vicarious
experiences. This is a result of a lack of tangible experiences associated with social
persuasion in which the participant can either successfully engage in or see another
individual successfully engage in the anticipated task. Social persuasion alone has been
found to increase self-efficacy sparingly but, when coupled with the learning of a new
skill or tool to accomplish an identified task, it has been found to increase self-efficacy
more than just learning the new skill or tool. Social persuasion also hinges on the
authenticity of the persuasion; genuine persuasion brought on by another individual’s true
belief that you can accomplish the task will raise your self-efficacy whereas non-genuine
persuasion has been found to have little to no effect (Bandura, 1977b; 1986). Social
persuasion is theorized to occur throughout the agriculture teacher development
experiences, through peers and professors during agriculture teacher preparation classes,
the cooperating teacher during student teaching or through presenters at an agricultural
education based professional development experience.
18
Physiological and Emotional States
The natural emotions as well as physiological state of an individual, when
cognitively processing an anticipated task, give indicators to the individual that will
either increase or decrease their self-efficacy. If, when contemplating the perceived
challenges associated with a task, an individual becomes overly nervous or fearful, the
individual perceives their body’s reaction as indication they are unable to successfully
complete the task. If an individual is without any negative physiological or emotional
indicators when contemplating a task, they perceive that stability as an indication they
can complete the task successfully. Negative physiological and emotional states can be
reduced in a process called desensitization. Desensitization occurs when through modeled
experiences, either tangible or thought based, an individual’s negative physiological and
emotional arousal recedes due to participating in these modeling exercises (Bandura,
1986). Although physiological and emotional states are hard to measure it is worth noting
that they do play a role in the development process of an early career agriculture teacher.
Teacher Efficacy
Research into self-efficacy has been conducted throughout many areas including;
addictive behaviors, healthcare, career choice and development, life transitions, family
processes, life trajectories and education (Bandura, 1995). The educational research into
self-efficacy has focused on two major themes: the student’s self-efficacy in motivation
and learning (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman, 2000; Schunk, 1991) and teacher efficacy
(Ashton & Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1993; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 1998; 2007; Woolfolk Hoy, 2000).
19
Teacher’s efficacy has been defined in many ways throughout the research but the
predominant definition was developed by Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy and Hoy
(1998): “Teacher efficacy is the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and
execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a
particular context” (p. 233). This definition distinguishes itself based on the clear
separation from outcome expectancy. Many other definitions of teacher efficacy fail to
clearly make the distinction between efficacy and outcome expectancy.
Creating a learning environment where students have the ability to succeed
depends greatly on the efficacy of the teacher (Bandura, 1993). Throughout the history of
teacher efficacy research many positive attributes have been found to correlate with the
individual teacher’s efficacy. Ability to motivate students, teacher innovation, adoption
of innovations, superintendent’s perception of the teacher’s effectiveness, classroom
management, time spent on difficult subjects and special education referrals are just a few
of the many positive teacher characteristics associated with a high teacher efficacy
(Woolfolk-Hoy, 2000).
Bandura noted that teachers with a high teacher efficacy are better able to create
self-efficacy building experiences for their students (Bandura, 1993). The resulting
efficacy will increase students’ persistence, leading to a more effective classroom.
Therefore, it’s no surprise that efficacious teachers provide their students a better learning
environment and have a stronger commitment to stay in the teaching profession
(Coladarci, 1992).
Previous research into the development of teacher efficacy has sought to identify
and explain the four types of efficacy building experiences in the development of a
20
teacher. Evidence of mastery & vicarious experiences, physiological and emotional states
as well as social persuasion have been found throughout teacher development programs
(Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 1998). The emphasis of teacher preparation
college classes is on vicarious learning experiences as well as social persuasion (Watters
& Ginns, 1995). Student teaching and early teaching experiences emphasize mastery
experiences as a method of increasing teacher efficacy (Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990).
Evidence of emotional and physiological states can be postulated throughout the teacher
development process. It’s important to note that vicarious experiences and social
persuasion are not limited to college classes. An example of this would be in student
teaching when a pre-service teacher observes their cooperating instructor or another
student teacher successfully complete a lesson. Mastery experiences may also occur
during teacher preparation college classes through student presentations and peerteaching.
Bandura’s original concept of the development of self-efficacy identifies that
efficacy-building experiences are essential to the establishment of a stable level of
efficacy (Bandura, 1977b; 1986). Most of the research into teacher efficacy focuses on
pre-service teachers, student teachers or early career teachers. Some caution is laid out
towards the research of teacher efficacy in pre-service and student teachers as these
developing teachers often lack a full comprehension of the challenges associated with
being a full-time teacher (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy & Hoy, 1998). This research
based concept is evidence towards the explanation of why student teachers will often
have a higher teacher efficacy than early career teachers, and why they have been omitted
from this study.
21
Teacher Efficacy in Agricultural Education
An in-depth review of the self-efficacy literature specific to Agricultural
Education has yielded three primary lines of inquiry: the development of teacher efficacy,
the relationship between agriculture teacher efficacy and career commitment and the role
teaching experience plays in the efficacy of an agriculture teacher.
Development of Agriculture Teacher Efficacy
The first published piece on the efficacy of agriculture teachers was completed by
Knobloch (2001). Knobloch completed a pre-experimental study of the teacher efficacy
of pre-service teachers in their first year of professional studies in Agricultural Education.
In this study, Knobloch examined the relationships between early field experiences, peer
teaching and first year Agricultural Education students’ efficacy. Knobloch found that
early field experiences did not significantly relate to teacher efficacy. Knobloch’s
research did observe a significant positive relationship between teacher efficacy and peer
teaching for one of the two groups investigated. Knobloch’s research was a
groundbreaking attempt at connecting presumed efficacy building experiences with preservice agriculture teachers’ efficacy.
The research into the development of agriculture teacher efficacy then expanded
to look at student teachers and current agriculture teachers. This research, completed by
Knobloch & Whittington (2002), focused on early career teachers in Ohio. A total of 106
student teachers through third year agriculture teachers were sampled to investigate the
variables of teacher support, teacher preparation quality and the experience of student
22
teaching as they relate to current teachers’ efficacy. Knobloch and Whittington found that
collective teacher efficacy (the feeling that you are part of a larger school-wide team
helping students), teacher preparation quality and the perception of the student teaching
experienced explained 17% of the variance in agriculture teacher’s efficacy. Knobloch
and Whittington’s findings support Bandura’s concept of efficacy development.
According to the theory of self-efficacy, the level of a teacher’s efficacy should be related
to their perception of experiences identified as efficacy builders. In the Knobloch and
Whittington (2002) study those efficacy builders were operationalized as teacher
preparation, student teaching and teacher support.
The role of the student teaching experience as a developer of agriculture teachers’
efficacy was advanced by a 2006 study completed by Whittington, McConnell and
Knobloch. These researchers found a significant correlation between teacher efficacy
scores and teachers who agreed that their student teaching experience was “excellent.” A
similar study was conducted at a pair of universities to measure the positive effects of the
student teaching experience across a wider scope of teachers (Knobloch, 2006).
Knobloch’s study also found a significant correlation between the perception of the
student teaching experience and student teachers’ efficacy at both universities.
Additionally, more recent research completed by Wolf supports the idea that teacher’s
perception of the student teaching experience has a positive correlation with their
teaching efficacy (2008; 2011).
Further investigation into the student teaching experience as a developer of
teacher efficacy was conducted by three research teams: Harlin, Roberts, Briers, Mowen
& Edgar (2007), Roberts, Harlin & Ricketts (2006) and Roberts, Mowen, Edgar, Harlin
23
and Briers (2007). These studies similarly found that through the student teaching
experience the efficacy of student teachers varies significantly. These research studies
found that a four week block on-campus, just prior to student teaching, was found to
increase student teacher’s efficacy. Teacher efficacy was then measured half way through
the student teaching experience, in each of these studies a significant drop in student
teachers’ efficacy was found at this point of data collection. The student teachers
participating in the studies experienced an increased in teacher efficacy at the final data
collection point which corresponded with the final day of the student teaching
experience. In a separate study Stripling, Ricketts, Roberts and Harlin (2008) found that
University of Georgia and Texas A&M student teacher’s efficacy improved at each point
of data collection: before methods class, after methods class/before student teaching and
after student teaching; unfortunately data were not collected half way through the student
teaching experience to compare findings to the previous research of teacher efficacy
completed during student teaching.
Edgar, Roberts and Murphy (2007) examined the communication between
cooperating teachers and student teachers and focused their research on student teachers’
efficacy related to the role of social persuasion as an efficacy building experience. They
discovered that communication, when structured both in time and type between student
teacher and cooperating teacher, resulted in a lower teacher efficacy when compared to
non-structured communication. The researchers postulated that the establishment of a
structured communication led to the student teacher’s being more grounded in their
ability to teach, and that structured communication forced student teachers’ to examine
their teaching abilities more critically.
24
A pair of 2006 research articles compared the teacher efficacy of traditionally and
alternatively certified agriculture teachers (Duncan and Ricketts, 2006; Rocca &
Washburn, 2006). Rocca and Washburn examined the effect of certification type on
Florida agriculture teachers in their first five years of teaching. Their research found
similar teacher efficacy levels between the two types of teacher certification. Further
investigation into Rocca and Washburn’s research shows that the alternatively certified
teachers were on average 10 years older than traditionally certified teachers. Presumably,
mastery experiences outside of teaching bolstered the alternatively certified teachers’
efficacy to a level similar to those teachers with traditional certification. A second 2006
article on certification type and efficacy level of agriculture teachers, completed by
Duncan and Ricketts, reported no significant age differences between traditionally and
alternatively certified agriculture teachers. The researchers found that traditionally
certified teachers were more efficacious in: content knowledge, FFA/leadership
development/SAE and managing an agricultural education program. The Duncan and
Ricketts article advances the idea that if age is accounted for, traditionally certified
teachers are found to have a higher teaching efficacy.
The first comprehensive look at agriculture teacher’s efficacy from the
perspective of Bandura’s specific efficacy building experiences was completed by Wolf,
Foster and Birkenholz (2010). These researchers studied the professional experiences of
pre-service teachers at Ohio State during their student teaching. The researchers
conceptualized professional experiences as either mastery, vicarious or social persuasion
experiences and found that vicarious experiences were the largest influencer of teacher
efficacy, specifically observing a first year agriculture teacher which accounted for 11%
25
of the variation in overall teacher efficacy and 17% of the variation in instructional
strategies efficacy. In the social persuasion category of experiences, verbal feedback from
their cooperating teacher was found to have a positive correlation with student teachers’
efficacy. Mastery experiences, operationalized as the number of classes taught during
student teaching, were identified as having a negative effect on a student teachers’
efficacy in classroom management. This key research showcases the strength of vicarious
experiences when mastery experiences are limited, additionally negative experiences like
those theorized to have occurred with classroom management during student teaching can
lower a teacher’s efficacy for that specific task.
Agriculture Teacher Efficacy and Career Commitment
The study of career commitment and teacher efficacy in Agricultural Education
began with research done by Knobloch and Whittington (2003a). Their research
approached career commitment as an influence on the efficacy of first through third year
agriculture teachers in Ohio. The researchers measured teacher efficacy and career
commitment at the beginning of the year and split the teachers into two groups based on
the median commitment score. At the beginning of the year the researchers observed that
the two groups, low commitment and high commitment, had similar efficacy scores.
After ten weeks of teaching the researchers measured teacher efficacy again and found
that the low career commitment group’s efficacy had dropped while the high commitment
group maintained a steady level of teacher efficacy. The research done by Knobloch and
Whittington started the process of understanding the relationship between teacher
efficacy and career commitment among agriculture teachers.
26
Additional research into the relationship between teacher efficacy and career
commitment used efficacy as the explanatory variable of career commitment. In his
dissertation Swan (2005) looked at teacher efficacy and career intent of student teachers
at Ohio State. He found that 17% of the variance in career intent could be contributed to
the efficacy of student teachers. Research completed by Wheeler and Knobloch (2006)
supports the idea that teacher efficacy positively relates to career commitment. These
studies support Bandura’s concept that a higher level of efficacy will strengthen an
individual’s commitment to persist in a given challenge.
Blackburn and Robinson (2008) addressed the issue of teacher attrition by
examining the job satisfaction of Kentucky agriculture teachers with 1-6 years of
teaching experience. Blackburn and Robinson’s research examined the relationship
between teacher efficacy and job satisfaction of these agriculture teachers. Researchers
found a significant relationship between agriculture teachers’ efficacy and level of job
satisfaction.
Agriculture Teacher Efficacy and Years of Experience
Additional studies in Agricultural Education have evaluated the relationship
between years of teaching experience and agriculture teachers’ efficacy. Additional
opportunities for mastery and vicarious experiences, social persuasion and physiological
and emotional states come with additional experience in a given task. Therefore it can be
reasoned that those individuals with more experience teaching will have a stronger
teacher efficacy. Researchers in Agricultural Education have put this reasoning to the test
through 14 years of investigation.
27
In his unpublished dissertation Rodriguez (1997) examined the efficacy of early
field experience students, student teachers, first year and second year agriculture teachers
in Ohio. Rodriguez sought a connection between the level of efficacy and teaching
experience. Rodriguez was only able to obtain 11 first year teachers and 6 second year
teachers in his sample. Possibly due to the low participant numbers Rodriguez did not
find a significant difference between the efficacy of teachers based on years of
experience.
Knobloch and Whittington (2003b) published research comparing teacher efficacy
during the first ten weeks of school for student teachers through third year agriculture
teachers in Ohio. Knobloch and Whittington found that student teachers, second year
teachers and third year teachers maintained a stable teacher efficacy through the first ten
weeks of school. First year teachers were found to have a significant drop in their selfefficacy over the same time period. Student teachers were found to have the highest
teacher efficacy after ten weeks of school while first year teachers were found to have the
lowest teacher efficacy of all the groups after 10 weeks of school. The findings that
student teachers have a heightened teacher efficacy and first year teachers experience a
dip in their efficacy was supported in a 2011 longitudinal study of agriculture teachers
who graduated from Ohio State (Swan, Wolf & Cano, 2011).
Additional research into teaching experience and teacher efficacy in agricultural
education has yielded varying results. In a 2006 study of novice (years 1-3) agriculture
teachers in Ohio, no significant difference in teacher efficacy was found between first,
second and third year teachers (Whittington, McConnell & Knobloch, 2006). Blackburn
and Robinson (2008) found that splitting Kentucky agriculture teachers into groups based
28
on teaching experience: 1-2 years, 3-4 years and 5-6 years yielded teachers with 3-4 years
of experience as the least efficacious agriculture teachers. Finally a 2006 study of Illinois
agriculture teachers in their first through fourth year of teaching found a negative
correlation between teaching experience and teacher efficacy (Wheeler & Knobloch,
2006). Wheeler and Knobloch hypothesized that early career agriculture teachers’
enthusiasm could explain these counter-intuitive results.
Alternatively, three studies of agriculture teachers have seen significant positive
correlations between teaching experience and teacher efficacy. In her dissertation, Wolf
(2008) found a low positive relationship between years of teaching experience and
teacher efficacy. In his Master’s thesis Hartfield (2011) separated Arizona agriculture
teachers into two groups based on years of experience: 1-5 years of experience and 5+
years of experiences, and found that those agriculture teachers with more experience had
a higher level of efficacy. Finally, the research team of Burris, McLaughlin, McCulloch,
Brashears and Fraze (2010) found that fifth year teachers were more efficacious in
personal teaching efficacy, general teaching efficacy and content efficacy when
compared to first year teachers.
Table 1 identifies all the available research pertaining to agricultural teacher
efficacy over the last 16 years. In addition to the previously mentioned studies, Table 1
also examines the population, instrumentation, and findings.
29
Table 1
Previous Agriculture Teacher Efficacy Research
Author(s),
Year
Rodriguez,
1997
Knobloch,
2001
Knobloch &
Whittington,
2002
Knobloch &
Whittington,
2003a
Knobloch &
Whittington,
2003b;
Knobloch,
2002
Swan, 2005
Population
Teacher Efficacy
Instrument Used
Pre-service through second Teacher Self Efficacy
year Agriculture Teachers in Scale (short form)
Ohio during the 1996-1997 (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993)
school year.
Two groups of pre-service
Teacher Self Efficacy
agricultural education
Scale (short form)
students enrolled in a
(Woolfolk & Hoy, 1990)
foundational agricultural
education class.
Student teachers through
The Ohio State Teacher
third year agriculture
Sense of Efficacy Scale
teachers in Ohio during the (TSES)
2001-2002 school year.
(Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001)
First through third year
TSES
agriculture teachers in Ohio
during the 2001-2002
school year.
Student teachers through
Questionnaire developed
third year agriculture
based on Bandura’s
teachers in Ohio during the concept of self-efficacy
2001-2002 school year.
and Darling-Hammonds
(1999) review of effective
teacher qualities.
Pre-service agricultural
TSES
education students at Ohio
State in 2004.
Findings
Field dependent learning style yielded higher teacher
efficacy scores than field independent or field neutral.
Learning style was measured using the Group
Embedded Figures Test.
One group experienced a significant increase in
personal teaching efficacy after peer teaching, the
other group did not. Neither group experienced an
increase in personal or general teaching efficacy after
their early field experience.
Collective teacher efficacy accounted for 10.8% of
teacher efficacy, perceived teacher support accounted
for 1.0% of teacher efficacy and the perception of the
student teaching experience accounted for 2.8% of
teacher efficacy.
After ten weeks of teaching the teacher efficacy of the
low career commitment group dropped while the
teacher efficacy of the high career commitment group
remained the same.
After the initial ten weeks of school student teachers
were found to have the highest teacher efficacy while
first year teachers were found to have the lowest
teacher efficacy.
Learning style did no relate to teacher heart or teacher
efficacy. Found that 17% of the variance in career
intent was associated with teacher efficacy.
30
Whittington, Ohio agriculture teachers in
McConnell & their first three years of
Knobloch,
teaching in 2002.
2006
TSES
Knobloch,
2006
Student teachers at Ohio
State University and
University of Illinois during
the 2001-2002 school year.
Student teachers at Texas
A&M in the 2004 Fall
cohort.
TSES
Rocca &
Washburn,
2006
Agriculture teachers in their
first five years of teaching
in Florida during the 20032004 school year.
TSES
Duncan &
Ricketts,
2006
Middle school and/or high
school agriculture teachers
in a southern state during
the 2004-2005 school year.
Wheeler &
Knobloch,
2006
Illinois agriculture teachers
in the first four years of
teaching during the 20022003 school year.
A researcher developed
instrument measuring
efficacy in four areas
specific to Agricultural
Education.
TSES
Roberts,
Harlin &
Ricketts,
2006
TSES
Career commitment had the strongest positive
relationship with teacher efficacy. Number of students
enrolled in agriculture education, the student teaching
experience and confidence were also positively
correlated with teacher efficacy. Number of class
preparations and planning not to teach were negatively
correlated with teacher efficacy.
Those student teachers who perceived their teacher
preparation programs positively had a higher teacher
efficacy. The two groups has similar teacher efficacy
throughout the student teaching experience.
Teacher efficacy increased during a four week on
campus experience, then dropped halfway through
student teaching, but rebounded by the end of the
student teaching experience. Student engagement
efficacy dropped during student teaching.
Alternatively certified teachers were on average 10
years older than traditionally certified teachers, with
an average of 12 more years of agriculturally related
occupational experience. Alternatively and
traditionally certified teachers had equal teacher
efficacies.
Traditionally certified teachers had higher efficacy
scores in the following areas: technical content
knowledge, FFA/SAE/Leadership Development,
program management. The two groups were equally
efficacious in the teaching and learning construct.
Years of teaching experience was negatively
correlated with teacher efficacy. Contract length,
career commitment, number of students enrolled in the
agricultural education program and years of teaching
experience explained 11% of the variation in teacher
efficacy.
31
Harlin,
Roberts,
Briers,
Mowen &
Edgar, 2007
Edgar,
Roberts &
Murphy,
2007
Roberts,
Mowen,
Edgar, Harlin
& Briers,
2007
Student teachers at Tarleton TSES
State, Texas A&M, Texas
Tech and Oklahoma State in
2005.
Teacher efficacy increased through a four week oncampus experience, declined to its lowest level at the
mid-point of student teaching, rebounded to the
highest level at the end of student teaching.
Student teachers at Texas
TSES
A&M during the 2004, 2005
and 2006 Fall cohorts.
Student teachers at Texas
A&M during the 2005
Spring and Fall semesters.
TSES
Wolf, 2008;
2011
Researcher designed
instrument used to collect
agriculture teacher efficacy
in three domains:
classroom, FFA and SAE.
Blackburn &
Robinson,
2008
Agriculture teachers in Ohio
who had been licensed
though Ohio State
University who had been
teaching four years of less
in 2008.
Agriculture teachers in
Kentucky in their first six
years of teaching.
Structured communication with the cooperating
teacher yielded a lower teacher efficacy. Those in the
unstructured communication group increased in
teacher efficacy during student teaching.
Researchers observed a dip in the overall teacher
efficacy of student teachers at the mid-point of student
teaching. Researchers also found that the personality
type “sensing” was negatively correlated with
instructional strategies efficacy and the personality
type “judging” was positively related to classroom
management efficacy. Personality types were
measured using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Highest level of teacher efficacy found in the
classroom domain, lowest teacher efficacy levels in
the SAE domain. Teachers’ perception of their student
teaching and first year of teaching were positively
correlated with teacher efficacy.
Stripling,
Ricketts,
Roberts &
Harlin, 2008;
Stripling,
2005
Pre-service agricultural
education students at the
University of Georgia and
Texas A&M University
from the Fall of 2004 to the
Spring of 2006.
TSES
TSES
Teachers in their 3-4 years of teaching had the lowest
teacher efficacy and job satisfaction scores. In general
teacher efficacy was positively correlated with overall
job satisfaction.
Overall teaching efficacy increased at each point of
data collection: before teaching methods class, after
teaching methods class and after student teaching.
32
Aschebrener,
Garton &
Ross, 2010
Burris,
McLaughlin,
McCulloch,
Brashears &
Fraze, 2010
Agriculture teachers with
five years or less experience
teaching in Missouri during
the 2006-2007 school year.
First and fifth year
agriculture teachers in
Texas during the 2006-2007
school year.
Wolf, Foster
&
Birkenholz,
2010
Student teachers at Ohio
State University during the
2007 Fall term.
Swan, Wolf
& Cano,
2011
Longitudinal study of Ohio
State University’s 2004 Fall
agriculture student teaching
cohort. Efficacy recorded
after student teaching, first,
second and third years of
teaching.
Agriculture teachers in
Arizona during the 20102011 school year.
Hartfield,
2011
Modified version of
working with diverse
students scale (Brownell &
Pajares, 1999).
General and Personal
Teacher Efficacy through
the Teacher Self Efficacy
Scale (Woolfolk & Hoy,
1990). Content efficacy
was measured using a
researcher developed
instrument.
TSES
TSES
Wolf’s (2008) Agriculture
Teacher Efficacy Scale
Teacher efficacy accounted for 14% of the variance in
teachers’ self-perceived success working with students
with special needs.
Fifth year agriculture teacher were more efficacious
in: personal teaching efficacy, general teaching
efficacy and in five areas of specific agriculture
content knowledge. The differences in efficacy
between the two groups were considered “Small.”
Vicarious experiences accounted for the strongest
relationship with teacher efficacy. The vicarious
experience of observing a first year teacher accounted
for 11% of the overall teaching efficacy and 14% of
the instructional strategies efficacy. Verbal feedback
from cooperating teacher was also positively
correlated with teacher efficacy. The number of
courses taught was negatively correlated with the
classroom management efficacy domain.
The lowest point of teacher efficacy was after the first
year of teaching, the highest point of teacher efficacy
was after the student teaching experience. The student
engagement domain yielded the lowest level of
teacher efficacy throughout the study.
Experienced teachers (those with more than five years
of experience) were more efficacious in classroom,
FFA and SAE domains when compared to those
Arizona teachers with less than five years of teaching
experience.
33
Teacher Retention in Agriculture
Self-efficacy is directly connected with an individual’s ability to persist through
challenges (Bandura 1977a, 1977b, 1986, 1993). Early career agriculture teachers face a
variety of challenges that might push a non-efficacious teacher out of the profession.
Talbert et al. (1994) logged the daily struggles of new agriculture teachers during the
1988-1989 school year. Student discipline, unique requirements, unique pitfalls, teacher
isolation, students, FFA activities, time management, lesson planning and
classroom/laboratory management were consistently identified as challenges for these
early career agriculture teachers.
In a more recent study conducted by Myers, Dyer and Washburn (2005) many
major issues were identified as problems faced by beginning agriculture teachers. The top
five issued identified by this study were: organizing an effective alumni chapter,
organizing an effective advisory board, conducting FFA chapter events and activities,
student discipline and recruiting and maintaining alumni members. Additionally, Croom
(2003) investigated teacher retention in agriculture through the lens of teacher burnout.
Croom found that agriculture teachers suffer from moderate levels of emotional
exhaustion as well as low levels of depersonalization.
The triennial study, conducted by Kantrovich (2010), of the supply and demand of
agriculture teachers has continually identified a need for stronger recruitment and
retention strategies to increase the supply of agriculture teachers to an adequate level.
Kantrovich identifies that national pushes to increase the number of agriculture programs
will be unsuccessful without enough teachers with high career commitment. Kantrovich
recommends additional research to identify why teachers are leaving the profession
34
including an investigation into national education agendas that could contribute to
teachers not entering/leaving the profession. This study investigates one of these national
education agendas, STEM and how science and math teaching efficacy relate to early
career agriculture teachers’ career commitment.
Conceptual Framework for the Current Study
Based on the review of literature related to the development of self-efficacy,
teacher efficacy, the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and retention and
agriculture teacher efficacy the following conceptual framework is proposed.
35
Teacher Development Experiences: Contributors to Self-Efficacy
Student Teaching
Projected Self-Efficacy Building Experiences
Mastery – Teaching
Vicarious – Observing Cooperating Teacher
Emotional/Physiological States – Preparing to
teach
Social Persuasion – Feedback from
Cooperating Teacher/University Supervisor
Professional Development
Projected Self-Efficacy Building Experiences
Mastery – (Possible) If teaching opportunity
Vicarious – Observing/Hearing someone who
has had success
Social Persuasion – Being told you can
implement these strategies
Teacher Efficacy
1.) Instructional Strategies
2.) Classroom Management
3.) Leadership of Students
4.) Ability to teach Math
5.) Ability to teach Science
Agriculture teachers’ career
commitment
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes
Projected Self-Efficacy Building Experiences
Mastery – Peer Teaching
Vicarious – Peer Teaching/Observing
Professors/Classroom Visits
Emotional/Physiological States – Peer
Teaching
Social Persuasion – Feedback from
peers/professors
Figure 2. Conceptual model of the development of agriculture teacher efficacy and relationship between agriculture teacher efficacy and
career commitment
36
Chapter 3: Research Methods
Type of Research
This descriptive, correlational study examined early career teacher’s perceived
impact of three teacher development experiences, early career teacher’s current teaching
efficacy in five constructs and early career teacher’s career commitment. This study
sought to capture all early career teachers, in their first through fifth year of teaching
agriculture, in five western states during the 2012-2013 school year and is therefore
considered a census. Potential threats to validity were addressed by this study. Sampling
error was addressed by pursuing all early career teachers in the five identified western
states. Frame and selection error were addressed by utilizing each states directory of
school-based agriculture teachers checked by a leader in agricultural education within
each respective state. In order to account for non-response error, on-time versus late
respondents were compared. Validity and reliability tests were used to address
measurement error.
The correlational component of this study sought to measure the relationships
between early career teachers’ perceived impact of three teacher development
experiences and their current efficacy in five agriculture teaching related constructs.
Additionally, the relationships between early career teachers career commitment and
teacher efficacy were investigated.
Population and Subject Selection
The population of this descriptive, correlational study included all current
agriculture teachers in their first five years of teaching in five western states: California,
37
Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington. The frame of this research was obtained by
reviewing each states directory of school-based agriculture teachers and by contacting
leaders in agricultural education within each respective state to ensure teachers in their
first through fifth year of teaching were included in this study.
Outcome Measures
The five teacher efficacy constructs were assembled from four established
efficacy scales used in education. Instructional strategies and classroom management
constructs were taken from the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy Scale long form (TschannenMoran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The wording of each question in the instructional
strategies and classroom management constructs was changed to from “How much can
you/To what extent can you/How well can you” to “I can/I am able” to ensure
homogeneity throughout the five efficacy constructs. The scale used in the Teacher’s
Sense of Efficacy scale was changed from a nine point scale (1= Nothing; 9 = A Great
Deal) to a scale ranging from one to six (1= Strongly Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree) to
ensure homogeneity throughout the instrument.
The 13 questions used to assess teachers’ ability to teach science were taken from
the Personal Science Teaching Efficacy Belief portion of the Science Teaching Efficacy
Belief Instrument (Riggs & Enochs, 1990). The scaling was also changed from a five
point scale (1 = Strongly Agree; 5 = Strongly Disagree) to a six point scale (1= Strongly
Disagree; 6 = Strongly Agree).
The seven question construct used to measure early career teachers’ ability to
teach math efficacy was developed using the Ohio State University Teaching Confidence
38
Scale Math/Science efficacy construct after eliminating the two science specific questions
(Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). “I can/I am able” was added at the beginning of each question.
The leadership of students efficacy section of the instrument was developed from
the Individual Leadership Factors Inventory (ILFI) (Velez, Simonsen & Birkenholz,
2012). Wording in each question was changed from “others” to “students” to clarify for
teachers that the assessment was of their leadership of students.
In addition to the teacher efficacy measurement was the measurement of teachers’
perceived level of impact from three agriculture teacher development programs. The
three areas of teacher development were selected based on their ability to be influenced
by a college based teacher development program. A six point scale was used to measure
teacher’s perceived impact (1 = No Impact; 6 = Extreme Impact) with an additional “Not
Applicable” selection made available for those respondents who did not go through the
traditional teacher development process.
The final outcome measured was that of career commitment. Career commitment
was measured based on the respondents’ mean score from two questions: “How confident
are you that you will be a school-based agriculture teacher in five (5) years?” and “How
confident are you that you will be a school-based agriculture teacher in ten (10) years?”
Confidence scores relating to career commitment were scored based on a six point scale
(1 = No Confidence; 6 = Extreme Confidence).
Instrument Validity and Reliability
Following the development of the outcome measures, the reliability of the
instrument used in this test was assessed through a pilot test (n=31) using the Cronbach’s
39
alpha internal consistency reliability coefficient. Indiana agriculture teachers in their first
through fifth year of teaching were used as the population for this pilot test. The
reliabilities of this pilot test are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2
Reliabilities of Teacher Efficacy Constructs (Cronbach’s alpha) (n=31)
Teacher
efficacy
Instructional
Strategies
Classroom
Management
.83
.93
Ability to
Teach
Science
.75
Ability to
Teach Math
Leadership
of Students
.91
.95
Table 3
Reliabilities of Teacher Development Experiences (Cronbach’s alpha) (n=31)
Teacher Development
Experience
Agriculture
Teacher
Preparation
Classes
.76
Student
Teaching
Professional
Development
.72
.88
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected using Dillman’s (2000) tailored design method. Approval
from the Institutional Review Board was sought and the study was approved. The data
were collected using the secure online survey provider Qualtrics® with an option for
individuals to receive a mailed questionnaire if they preferred.
The data were collected during February of 2013. Potential respondents were first
sent a personalized e-mail which notified them of the study as well as offered them an
40
option to request a mailed copy of the questionnaire. Three days after original contact, a
second e-mail was sent including a cover letter and a link to the questionnaire. In the
event a respondent requested a mailed copy a cover letter, copy of the instrument and a
pre-stamped return envelope were mailed to the potential respondent. Subsequent
contacts, with a maximum of five points of contact, with the respondents were only with
those who had not returned/completed the questionnaire.
On-time respondents were compared to late respondents using an independent
samples t-test. On-time respondents were those who returned the questionnaire after the
first two contacts containing a like to the questionnaire (Miller & Smith, 1983).
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 20 was used to
analyze the collected data. Efficacy domains were summated to analyze the data. Career
commitment was determined by identifying the mean response of two questions: “How
confident are you that you will be a school based agriculture teacher in five (5) years?”
and “How confident are you that you will be a school based agriculture teacher in ten
(10) years?”
Descriptive statistics were used to complete research objective one: describe the
demographic characteristics of early career agriculture teachers, objective two: describe
the teacher efficacy of early career agriculture teachers and objective three: describe the
perceived impact of identified teacher development experiences on early career
agriculture teachers.
41
The data were then checked for normality using a one-sample KolmogrovSmirnov Test; career commitment and teacher development experience impact scores
were not normally distributed. Due to the lack of a normal distribution, Spearman’s
correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to complete research objective four: describe the
relationships between early career agriculture teachers’ efficacy and their commitment to
stay in the agriculture teaching profession. Spearman’s Correlation coefficients (ρ) were
also used to complete objective five: describe the relationship between early career
agriculture teachers’ efficacy and their perceived level of impact from identified teacher
development experiences. The significance level used in this study was set a priori at α =
< .05. The effect size decision was also made a priori: ρ < .10 = trivial effect, ρ > .10 =
small effect, ρ > .30 = moderate effect and ρ > .50 = large effect (Cohen 1988; 1992).
Similar to other studies inferential statistics were used in this research (Knobloch,
2006; Harlin, et al., 2007). This method was deemed acceptable by Gall, Gall and Borg
(2003, p.176) who stated: “inferential statistics can be used with data collected from a
convenience sample if the sample is carefully conceptualized to represent a particular
population.” As stated by Harlin and fellow researchers (2007, p. 81) “Readers are
encouraged to examine the description of the sample and make their own judgment about
generalizing the findings to other populations…”
42
Chapter 4: Findings
A total of 295 agriculture teachers were identified for this study. All identified
teachers’ were in their first five years of teaching school-based agriculture in California,
Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington during the 2012-2013 school year. The majority of
teachers, 184, were teaching in California at the point of data collection; an additional 25
Idaho teachers, 34 Oregon teachers, 28 Utah teachers and 24 Washington teachers
comprised the scope of this study. A total of 168 teachers responded to the questionnaire,
yielding a 57% response rate. The decision was made a priori to remove respondents
who failed to complete at least 75% of the questionnaire, this decision removed 18 of the
responses yielding a useable response rate of 51%. A total of 97 respondents taught in
California, 8 in Idaho, 21 in Oregon, 18 in Utah and 6 in Washington. The breakdown of
response rates by state can be found in Table 4.
Table 4
Response rates by state (N =150)
Questionnaires Sent
Number Responded
Response Rate
California
184
97
52.72%
Idaho
25
8
32.00%
Oregon
34
21
61.76%
Utah
28
18
64.29%
Washington
24
6
25.00%
Total
295
150
50.85%
On-time respondents (those responding before the third point of contact; N = 104)
were compared to late respondents (those responding after the third point of contact; N =
43
46) using an independent samples t-test (α = 0.05). No significant difference was found
between the two groups in the areas of career commitment, science teaching efficacy,
instructional strategies efficacy, classroom management efficacy, math teaching efficacy
and leadership of students efficacy. Therefore, non-response bias was not considered an
issue.
Results for objective 1: Describe the demographic characteristics of early career
agriculture teachers in five western states.
Respondents to this questionnaire included 39 (26.00%) first year agriculture
teachers, 32 (21.33%) second year teachers, 35 (23.33%) third year teachers, 25 (16.67%)
fourth year teachers and 19 (12.67%) fifth year teachers. The average age of respondents
was 28.6 years old, with a range of ages from 23 to 64 years old; the most common age
was 25, which included 23 (15.33%) respondents, 71.80% of respondents were between
the ages of 23 to 28. The majority of teachers (67.80%) were female. Of the respondents:
83.33% went through a high school agriculture program, 26.00% held a bachelor’s
degree, 45.33% had completed some graduate work, 28.67%, 25.17% were CASE
certified and 89.33% taught agriculture courses for science credit.
The average number of students enrolled in early career teachers’ agriculture
programs was 280 students; the smallest agriculture program included 8 students with the
largest program serving 1,700 students. On average respondents taught 65 minute class
periods and facilitated just over one agri-science lab per week in each agriculture class
they taught. The most common response to the number of teachers in the agriculture
44
program was one (39.33%) with a range in the number of teachers per agriculture
program from one to nine; the average number of teachers per program was 2.34.
When asked how confident these early career teachers were they would still be
teaching school-based agriculture in five years, 61.33% were either highly confident or
extremely confident they would still be teaching. Only 14.67% early career teachers
responded that they had less than moderate confidence they would be teaching in five
years. Additionally, teachers in this study were asked how confident they were that they
would be teaching school-based agriculture in ten years; 41.33% of the respondents
indicated they were either highly confident or extremely confident they would still be
teaching in ten years. The percentage of respondents that indicated they were less than
moderately confident they would still be teaching school-based agriculture in ten years
was 28.67%.
45
Results for objective 2: Describe the teacher efficacy of early career agriculture
teachers in five western states.
Respondents to this questionnaire indicated the strongest efficacy in the area of
classroom management. The average classroom management efficacy score was 5.01 on
a six point scale. The next highest efficacy identified through this study was respondent’s
instructional strategies efficacy which averaged 4.90. Following instructional strategies
teachers felt most efficacious in their ability to lead students, which averaged 4.80.
Teachers’ perceived the least amount of efficacy in their ability to teach science (4.20),
and their ability to teach math (4.04). A summary of how teachers’ perceived their
efficacy in these five areas can be found in Table 5.
Table 5
Respondents’ Teacher Efficacy (N = 150)
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Classroom
Management
3.29
6.00
5.01
Standard
Deviation
.69
Instructional
Strategies
2.75
6.00
4.90
.63
Leadership of
Students
2.75
6.00
4.80
.68
Ability to
Teach Science
2.92
5.46
4.20
.49
Ability to
1.00
6.00
4.04
.94
Teach Math
Note. Teachers’ sense of efficacy measured on a six point scale; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 6
= Strongly Agree
46
Results for objective 3: Describe the perceived impact of identified teacher
development experiences on early career agriculture teachers in five western states.
Respondents to this questionnaire identified student teaching as the most
influential agriculture teacher development experience in the following areas: classroom
management, instructional strategies, leadership of students, ability to teach science and
ability to teach math. Agriculture teacher preparation was identified as the least impactful
experience for respondents’ classroom management, instructional strategies, leadership of
students and ability to teach science. Table 6 shows respondents average impact score
based on a six point scale.
Table 6
Perceived Impact of Teacher Development Experiences on Respondent’s Teaching
Strategies (N = 150)
Agriculture Teacher
Preparation
3.58
Student Teaching
4.87
Professional
Development
3.79
Instructional
Strategies
4.30
4.99
4.50
Leadership of
Students
4.20
4.94
4.45
Ability to Teach
Science
3.77
4.34
4.27
Ability to Teach
Math
2.45
2.61
2.25
Classroom
Management
Note. Teachers’ perceived impact measured on a six point scale; 1= No Impact, 6 =
Extreme Impact
47
Results for objective 4: Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy and
career commitment for early career teachers in five western states.
The relationship between respondents’ career commitment and teacher efficacy
(Table 7) identified that classroom management efficacy had the strongest relationship
with career commitment (ρ = .37, r2= .14). Additionally, the correlation between
instructional strategies efficacy (ρ = .33, r2= .11), ability to teach science (ρ = .34, r2=
.12) and career commitment produced a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988, 1992).
Significant relationships (small effect sizes) were also found between leadership of
students efficacy and career commitment (ρ = .30, r2= .09) as well as respondents’ ability
to teach math efficacy and career commitment (ρ = .20, r2= .04).
The potential issue of multi-collinearity was checked using the Lewis-Beck
(1980) method. Each independent variable was regressed against all other independent
variables. The resulting r2 values from each regression were not close to 1.0, (r2 values
ranged from .15 to .55) therefore multi-collinearity was not considered an issue among
the independent variables used in objective 4. These conclusions are supported by Cohen
& Cohen (1983) who advocate keeping independent variables separate if the research
objectives require separate analyses of each independent variable and its relationship with
the dependent variable.
48
Table 7
Correlations of Teacher Efficacy Variables and Career Commitment
1. Classroom Management
Efficacy
2. Instructional Strategies
Efficacy
3. Leadership of Students
Efficacy
4. Ability to Teach Science
Efficacy
1
2
3
4
5
6
--
.65
.67
.39
.20
.37
--
.61
.49
.38
.33
--
.45
.21
.30
--
.30
.34
--
.20
5. Ability to Teach Math
Efficacy
6. Career Commitment
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
--
49
Results for objective 5: Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy and the
perceived impact of teacher development experiences for early career teachers in five
western states.
Potential multi-collinearity issues between the independent variables (teacher
development experiences) for each cluster of teacher efficacy were checked using the
Lewis-Beck (1980) method. The resulting r2 values from each set of regressions ranged
from .12 to .46, therefore multi-collinearity was not considered an issue among each set
of independent variables used to complete objective 5. These conclusions are supported
by Cohen & Cohen (1983) who advocate keeping independent variables separate if the
research objectives require separate analyses of each independent variable and its
relationship with the dependent variable.
The relationship between respondents’ classroom management efficacy and
perception of the impact of three teacher development experiences: agriculture teacher
preparation, student teaching and professional development experiences are shown in
Table 8. Two teacher development experiences were identified as having a significant
relationship with respondents’ classroom management efficacy: agriculture teacher
preparation (ρ = .25, r2= .06) and student teaching (ρ = .28, r2= .08). The relationship
between respondents’ classroom management efficacy and their perception of
professional development experiences was not significant (ρ = .07, r2= < .01).
50
Table 8
Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Classroom Management Efficacy
1. Agriculture Teacher Preparation
2. Student Teaching
1
2
3
4
--
.42
.43
.25
--
.23
.28
--
.07
3. Professional Development
4. Classroom Management Efficacy
--
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
Two significant relationships were identified between respondents’ instructional
strategies efficacy and their perception of agriculture teacher development experiences
(Table 9). Agriculture teacher preparation (ρ = .18, r2= .03) and student teaching (ρ = .24,
r2= .06) were both found to be significantly related to respondents’ instructional
strategies efficacy. The relationship between respondents’ instructional strategies efficacy
and their perception of professional development experiences was found to be nonsignificant (ρ = .11, r2= .01).
51
Table 9
Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Instructional Strategies Efficacy
1. Agriculture Teacher Preparation
2. Student Teaching
1
2
3
4
--
.33
.28
.18
--
.28
.24
--
.11
3. Professional Development
4. Instructional Strategies Efficacy
--
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
Investigation into the relationship between respondents’ perception of teacher
development experiences and their leadership of students efficacy identified three
significant relationships (Table 10). The strongest relationship was between respondents’
perception of their student teaching experience and their leadership of students efficacy
(ρ = .41, r2= .17). The relationship between respondents’ perception of professional
development experiences (ρ = .32, r2= .10) and agriculture teacher preparation (ρ = .27,
r2= .07) were also identified as significant when correlated with respondents’ leadership
of students efficacy.
52
Table 10
Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Leadership of Students Efficacy
1. Agriculture Teacher Preparation
2. Student Teaching
1
2
3
4
--
.52
.50
.27
--
.46
.41
--
.32
3. Professional Development
4. Leadership of Students Efficacy
--
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
The relationships between respondents’ science teaching efficacy and their
perception of three teacher development experiences were identified as significant for all
three teacher development experiences (Table 11). The strongest relationship was
identified between science teaching efficacy and respondents’ perception of professional
development experiences (ρ = .28, r2= .08). Additionally, both agriculture teacher
preparation (ρ = .20, r2= .04) and student teaching (ρ = .20, r2= .04) were identified as
significantly related to respondents’ science teaching efficacy.
53
Table 11
Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Ability to Teach Science Efficacy
1. Agriculture Teacher Preparation
1
2
3
4
--
.30
.23
.20
--
.34
.20
--
.28
2. Student Teaching
3. Professional Development
4. Ability to teach Science Efficacy
--
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
Three significant relationships were identified when investigating respondents’
perception of teacher development experiences and math teaching efficacy (Table 12).
The strongest relationship was found between respondents’ perception of the agriculture
teacher preparation experience and their math teaching efficacy (ρ = .42, r2= .18).
Respondents’ perception of both student teaching (ρ = .33, r2= .11) and professional
development (ρ = .33, r2= .11) experiences were also identified as being significantly
correlated with respondents’ math teaching efficacy.
54
Table 12
Correlations of Teacher Development Experiences and Ability to Teach Math Efficacy
1. Agriculture Teacher Preparation
2. Student Teaching
1
2
3
4
--
.61
.60
.42
--
.60
.33
--
.33
3. Professional Development
4. Ability to teach Math Efficacy
Note. Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) reported (N = 150)
--
55
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion & Recommendations
Conclusions
Conclusions of objective 1: Describe the demographic characteristics of early
career agriculture teachers in five western states.
Based on the demographic findings of this study the researcher can conclude that
the majority of agriculture teachers in their first five years of teaching in California,
Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington are between 23 and 28 years old. The average early
career agriculture teacher in these five western states is a female with a bachelor’s degree
who went through an agriculture program as a high school student. The typical program
of an early career agriculture teacher consists of: 280 students, 2 to 3 teachers, 65 minute
class periods, just over one agri-science lab per week in each class and opportunities for
students to receive science credit through the agriculture program.
The majority (61.33%) of respondents were either highly confident or extremely
confident they would be teaching school-based agriculture in five years. When asked
their confidence level towards teaching school-based agriculture in ten years fewer
teachers were as confident they would still be teaching agriculture. No respondents
indicated “no confidence” when asked if they would be teaching school-based agriculture
in five years, only four teachers (2.67%) indicated no confidence towards teaching
school-based agriculture in ten years. Based on these findings the researcher can
conclude that the typical early career teacher in these five western states is highly
confident they will be teaching school-based agriculture in five years and moderately
confident they will be teaching school-based agriculture in ten years.
56
Conclusions of objective 2: Describe the teacher efficacy of early career
agriculture teachers in five western states.
Respondents to this study indicated the strongest teacher efficacy in classroom
management with an average construct score of 5.01 on a six point scale. Respondents
felt similarly efficacious in the instructional strategies and leadership of students
constructs, averaging a 4.90 and 4.80 respectively. Respondents identified the two
constructs related to STEM education as the two constructs they were the least
efficacious in. Respondents’ ability to teach science efficacy yielded an average construct
score of 4.20. The lowest efficacy score was found in the ability to teach math efficacy
construct which averaged a 4.04, nearly a whole point less than the highest efficacy
construct, classroom management efficacy. These findings indicate a potential need for
an increased focus on math and science teaching skills throughout early career teachers’
development.
Conclusions of objective 3: Describe the perceived impact of identified teacher
development experiences on early career agriculture teachers in five western states.
In the area of classroom management respondents identified student teaching as
the most impactful experience towards their current classroom management strategies.
Student teaching (4.87) averaged over a point higher than the two other experiences:
professional development experiences (3.79) and agriculture teacher preparation (3.58).
These findings indicate the potential to increase classroom management focus during
agriculture teacher preparation as well as professional development experiences.
57
Student teaching was again rated as the most impactful experience towards these
early career teachers’ instructional strategies. The discrepancy between student teaching
(4.99), professional development experiences (4.50) and agriculture teacher preparation
(4.30) was not as prevalent though, indicating that each experience had a similar impact
on these early career teachers’ instructional strategies.
In the leadership of students and ability to teach science constructs student
teaching was again rated as the most impactful experience. In each of these areas,
professional development experiences were rated as the second most impactful
experience, followed by the agriculture teacher preparation experience.
The ability to teach math impact scores identifies an alarming gap in early career
teachers’ perception of the impact of these three teacher development experiences. The
student teaching experience was rated as the most impactful experience towards
respondents’ ability to teach math, but was only rated a 2.61 on a six point scale, more
than two points lower than the average student teaching impact score. Likewise,
agriculture teacher preparation (2.45) and professional development experiences (2.25)
were identified as extremely low influencers towards respondents math teaching
strategies. These abnormally low math teaching impact scores identify a potential lack of
useable math teaching experiences in the three identified teacher development
experiences.
Conclusions of objective 4: Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy
and career commitment for early career teachers in five western states.
58
The investigation into the relationship between respondents’ teacher efficacy and
career commitment identified five significant relationships. The strongest relationship
was found between classroom management efficacy and career commitment (r2= .14)
which indicates that 14% of the variance in career commitment can be explained by
respondents’ classroom management efficacy. Ability to teach science efficacy was
identified as having the second strongest relationship with respondents’ career
commitment, explaining 12% (r2= .12) of the variance in career commitment.
Additionally, instructional strategies efficacy explained 11% (r2= .11) of the variance in
career commitment, leadership of students efficacy explained 9% (r2= .09) of the
variance in career commitment and respondents’ ability to teach math efficacy explained
4% (r2= .04) of the variance in career commitment. These findings support the research
completed by Blackburn and Robinson (2008), Knobloch and Whittington (2003a), Swan
(2005) and Whittington, McConnell and Knobloch (2006) which also found a positive
relationship between career commitment and teacher efficacy among agriculture teachers.
Conclusions of objective 5: Describe the relationship between teacher efficacy
and the perceived level of impact for early career teachers in five western states.
Two significant relationships were found between respondents’ perception of
agriculture teacher development experiences and their classroom management efficacy.
Respondents’ perception of the impact of the student teaching experience was found to
explain 8% (r2= .08) of the variance in classroom management efficacy. Additionally, 6%
(r2= .06) of the classroom management efficacy was explained by respondents’
perception of the impact of professional development experiences.
59
Respondents’ instructional strategies efficacy was found to significantly relate to
their perception of the impact of all three teacher development experiences. Student
teaching explained 6% (r2= .06) of the variance in instructional strategies efficacy. The
agriculture teacher preparation experience explained 3% (r2= .03) of the variance in
instructional strategies efficacy, respondents’ perception of professional development
experiences explained 1% (r2= .01) of the variance in instructional strategies efficacy.
Respondents’ leadership of students efficacy was found to be significantly related
to their perceived impact of the three identified teacher development experiences. The
strongest relationship was found with respondents’ perception of the impact of student
teaching which explained 17% (r2= .17) of the variance in leadership of students efficacy.
Additionally, 10% (r2= .10) of the variance in leadership of students efficacy was
explained by early career teachers’ perception of the impact of professional development
experiences and 7% (r2= .07) was explained by early career teachers’ perception of the
agriculture teacher preparation experience.
Investigation into the relationship between respondents’ perception of the impact
of teacher development experiences and their science teaching efficacy revealed three
significant relationships. The perceived impact of professional development experiences
explained 8% (r2= .08) of the variance in science teaching efficacy. The perceived impact
of the agriculture teacher preparationaration experience and the student teaching
experience explained 4% (r2= .04) and 4% (r2= .04) of the variance in early career
teachers’ science teaching efficacy respectively.
Respondents’ math teaching efficacy was found to have the strongest overall
relationship with early career teachers’ perception of the three identified teacher
60
development experiences. The strongest relationship was found between respondents’
perception of the impact of agriculture teacher preparation, which was found to explain
18% (r2= .18) of the variance in math teaching efficacy. Additionally, the perception of
the impact of student teaching was found to explain 11% (r2= .11) of the variance in math
teaching efficacy. A total of 11% (r2= .11) of the variance in math teaching efficacy was
explained by respondents’ perception of professional development experiences.
Discussion & Recommendations: Classroom Management Efficacy
Like the majority of recent research into agriculture teachers’ efficacy,
respondents to this study felt the most efficacious in their classroom management abilities
(Blackburn & Robinson, 2008; Roberts et al., 2007; Wolf et al., 2010). This study
identified that of the three identified teacher development experiences, student teaching
was identified as having the highest impact on early career teachers’ classroom
management strategies. The student teaching experience was also found to have the
strongest relationship with classroom management efficacy, explaining 8% of the
variation. These findings are consistent with Bandura’s (1977a) conceptualization of the
development of efficacy. Student teaching offers pre-service teachers the first opportunity
to gain substantial mastery and vicarious experiences managing a classroom.
The relationship between career commitment and early career teachers’ classroom
management efficacy identified that 14% of the variation in career commitment could be
explained by classroom management efficacy. These findings provide evidence towards
the importance of classroom management efficacy to the retention of early career
agriculture teachers. The strong relationship found between career commitment and
61
classroom management efficacy paired with the significant relationships between
respondents’ perception of the student teaching experience as well as respondents’
perception of the agriculture teacher preparation experience allow the researcher to make
two recommendations. First, it is recommended that classroom management focused,
vicarious experiences, such as showing pre-service students effective classroom
management strategies being executed by an early career teacher be included and/or
increased in agriculture teacher preparation classes. Likewise, encouraging cooperating
teachers to emphasize effective classroom management strategies during the student
teaching experience is recommended.
Discussion & Recommendations: Instructional Strategies Efficacy
Concurrent with past research this study found that agriculture teachers have a
high instructional strategies efficacy (Blackburn & Robinson, 2008; Roberts et al., 2007;
Stripling et al., 2005; Swan et al., 2011; Wolf et al., 2010). The development of these
early career agriculture teachers’ instructional strategies efficacy was evaluated through
their perception of three early career development experiences. Student teaching was
rated as having the highest impact on respondents’ current instructional strategies. Unlike
classroom management, respondents indicated a similar impact score for both agriculture
teacher preparation classes and professional development experiences. These findings
indicate a balance between agriculture teacher preparation, student teaching and
professional development experiences as they relate to the development of instructional
strategies.
62
The relationship between respondents’ perception of student teaching, agriculture
teacher preparation and professional development and their instructional strategies
efficacy revealed two significant relationships. Student teaching and agriculture teacher
preparation were identified as significantly related to respondents’ instructional strategies
efficacy. Although these experiences were identified as significant, they were not as
strong as the relationships found in other efficacy areas. These findings indicate that other
experiences, most likely mastery experiences completed while teaching, have a stronger
impact on respondents’ instructional strategies efficacy.
A moderate, positive relationship was found between early career teachers’
instructional strategies efficacy and their career commitment. These findings support the
claims that higher efficacy leads to more persistence in a given task (Bandura 1977a).
The balanced impact scores of the three identified teacher development experiences,
paired with the high instructional strategies efficacy, indicate that the agriculture teacher
development process, along with mastery teaching experiences during teaching, are
producing teachers high in instructional strategies efficacy. Future research should
investigate additional experiences of early career teachers with the goal of finding
experiences that have a significant relationship with instructional strategies efficacy. This
research will add to the understanding of which experiences have a significant
relationship with instructional strategies efficacy.
Discussion & Recommendations: Leadership of Students Efficacy
Of the three newly researched efficacy areas: leadership of students, ability to
teach math and ability to teach science, early career teachers felt most efficacious in their
63
leadership of students. The average leadership of students efficacy was just 0.10 points
from respondents’ instructional strategies efficacy score, the narrowest margin identified
in this study. Respondents felt student teaching was the most impactful experience
towards their ability to lead students. Further investigation into the relationship between
respondents’ perception of the impact of the student teaching experience and their
leadership of students efficacy revealed that 17% of the variance found in leadership of
students efficacy could be attributed to respondents perception of the impact of the
student teaching experience. Furthermore, the perception of the impact of the agriculture
teacher preparation experience and professional development experiences accounted for
7% and 10% of the variance in respondents’ leadership of students efficacy respectively.
These findings provide evidence that each of the three identified teacher development
experiences have a significant influence on early career teachers’ leadership of students
efficacy.
This study indicates that leadership of students efficacy has a significant
relationship with early career teachers’ career commitment. A total of 9% of the variance
found in career commitment was attributed to leadership of students efficacy. These
findings provide evidence that increased focus on strategies for leading students during
student teaching, agriculture teacher preparation and professional development
experiences have the potential to increase early career teachers’ leadership of students
efficacy and in turn their career commitment. Based on these findings the researcher
recommends that pre-service teachers be encouraged to coach a variety of career
development events during the student teaching experience to gain efficacy building
mastery leadership experiences. Additionally, it is recommended that agricultural
64
education based professional development experiences as well as agriculture teacher
preparation classes include leadership workshops where pre-service and current teachers
can learn effective strategies for leading high school students. These strategies have the
potential to increase early career teachers’ leadership of students efficacy.
Discussion & Recommendations: Ability to Teach Science Efficacy
Early career teachers’ ability to teach science was found to be the second lowest
efficacy area identified in this study. Respondents identified student teaching as the most
impactful experience towards their science teaching ability, the experience with the
lowest science teaching impact score was agriculture teacher preparation classes.
Although student teaching was identified as the most impactful teacher development
experience towards early career agriculture teachers’ ability to teach science, it did not
have the strongest relationship with higher science teaching efficacy, explaining just 4%
of the variance. The teacher development experience with the strongest positive
relationship with science teaching efficacy was professional development experiences,
which accounted for 8% of the variance in science teaching efficacy.
The relationship between science teaching efficacy and career commitment was
significant. This study found that 12% of the variance in career commitment was
explained by science teaching efficacy, the second strongest relationship behind
classroom management. The significant relationship between science teaching efficacy
and career commitment combined with the significant relationships found between
science teaching efficacy and all three agriculture teacher development experiences
identify the potential benefits for increased science integration throughout the agriculture
65
teacher development process. The researcher recommends science teaching based
mastery experiences (agriculture teachers successfully executing agri-science labs) be
included or increased in student teaching, agriculture teacher preparation and professional
development experiences.
Discussion & Recommendations: Ability to Teach Math Efficacy
The lowest efficacy area identified by this study is math teaching efficacy, falling
almost a whole point below classroom management efficacy on a six point scale.
Investigation into the development of math teaching efficacy identifies that respondents
feel very little math teaching impact during student teaching, agriculture teacher
preparation and professional development experiences. Although the average level of
impact is quite low the relationship between respondents’ perceived impact of teacher
development experiences and math teaching efficacy was strong. This study identified
that 18% of the variance in math teaching efficacy could be attributed to respondents
perception of the impact of agriculture teacher preparation. Additionally, student teaching
and professional development experiences both accounted for 11% of the variance in
math teaching efficacy. These findings indicate the tremendous potential to increase
agriculture teachers’ math teaching efficacy.
Investigation into the relationship between math teaching efficacy and career
commitment identified that 4% of the variation in career commitment could be explained
by math teaching efficacy, the weakest relationship identified through this study.
Although the relationship between math teaching efficacy and career commitment is low
it is still recommended that increased math integration experiences permeate the
66
agriculture teacher development process in order to meet the demands of STEM
integration in agricultural education. The researcher recommends that math teaching
workshops become a part of the agriculture teacher preparation, student teaching and
professional development experiences.
67
Summary of Recommendations
The researcher recommends that…
1.) Vicarious experiences, such as showing pre-service students effective classroom
management strategies being successfully executed by an early career teacher, be
included and/or increased in agriculture teacher preparation classes.
2.) Professional development experiences that include early career teachers contain
opportunities for teachers to see and discuss footage of “real-world” classroom
management strategies being executed.
3.) Cooperating teachers be encouraged to emphasize effective classroom
management strategies during the student teaching experience.
4.) Pre-service teachers be encouraged to coach a variety of career development
teams during student teaching.
5.) Agricultural education based professional development experiences as well as
agriculture teacher preparation classes include leadership workshops where preservice and current teachers can learn effective strategies for leading high school
students.
6.) Science teaching based mastery experiences, agriculture teachers successfully
executing agri-science labs, be included or increased in student teaching,
agriculture teacher preparation and professional development experiences.
7.) Math teaching workshops become a part of the agriculture teacher preparation,
student teaching and professional development experiences.
8.) Math and science integrated lesson plans be facilitated by pre-service students
during peer-teaching.
68
Recommendations for Further Study
1. Continued research into the development of teacher efficacy among early career
agriculture teachers.
2. Continued research into the effects of teacher efficacy on agriculture teachers’
career commitment.
3. Longitudinal studies of agriculture teacher efficacy to evaluate the change in
teacher efficacy over the first five years of teaching school-based agriculture.
4. Investigation into the teacher efficacy of those individuals who choose not to
enter the agriculture teacher profession as well as those individuals who choose to
leave the agriculture teaching profession.
5. Future research should investigate what experiences have a significant
relationship with instructional strategies efficacy and classroom management
efficacy.
6. Future studies of agriculture teacher efficacy include leadership of students
efficacy, math teaching efficacy and science teaching efficacy.
7. Additional studies in agriculture teacher efficacy that explore agriculture teachers’
technology and engineering teaching efficacy to add to the professions’
knowledge about STEM teaching in agricultural education.
69
References
Aschenbrener, M. S., Garton, B. L., & Ross, A. L. (2010). Early career agriculture
teachers’ efficacy toward teaching students with special needs. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 51(4), 105-117. doi: 10.5032/jae.2010.04105
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy
and student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist,
3, 344- 358.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H.
Freeman.
Blackburn, J. J., & Robinson, J. S. (2008). Assessing teacher self-efficacy and job
satisfaction of early career agriculture teachers in Kentucky. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 49(3), 1-11. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.03001
Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher efficacy and perceived success in
mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education
and Special Education Journal, 22(3), 154-164. doi:
10.1177/088840649902200303
Burris, S., McLaughlin, K. E., McCulloch, A., Brashears, T., & Fraze, S. (2010). A
comparison of first and fifth year agriculture teachers on personal teaching
efficacy, general teaching efficacy and content efficacy. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 51(1), 22-31. doi: 10.5032/jae.2010.01022
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
70
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of
Experimental Education, 60, 323-337.
Croom, D. B., (2003). Teacher burnout in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 44(2), 1-13.
Crosbie-Burnett, M. & Lewis, E. A. (1993). Use of African-American family structures
and functioning to address the challenges of European-American post-divorce
families. Family Relations, 42, 243-248.
Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Doerfert, D. L. (Ed.) (2011). National research agenda: American Association for
Agricultural Education’s research priority areas for 2011-2015. Lubbock, TX:
Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and
Communications.
Duncan, D., & Ricketts, J. C. (2006). Total program efficacy: A comparison of
traditionally and alternatively certified agriculture teachers. Proceedings of the
Southern Region American Association for Agricultural Education Conference,
Orlando, FL, 409-419.
Edgar, D. W., Roberts, T. G., & Murphy, T. H. (2007). Structured communication:
Effects on teaching efficacy of student teachers. Proceedings of the North Central
Region American Association for Agricultural Education Conference, Columbia,
MO, 17-31.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.
Harlin, J. F., Roberts, T. G., Briers, G. E., Mowen, D. L., & Edgar, D. W. (2007). A
longitudinal examination of teaching efficacy of agricultural science student
teachers at four different institutions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3),
78-90. doi: 10.5032/jae.2007.03078
Hartfield, K. N. (2011). Perceived levels of teacher self-efficacy among secondary
Arizona agricultural education teachers. (Unpublished master’s thesis).
University of Arizona, Tucson.
71
Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational
health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 356-372. doi: 00135984/93/9304- 0002801.00
Kantrovich, A. J. (2010). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers of
agricultural education from 2006-2009. American Association for Agricultural
Education.
Knobloch, N. A. (2001). The influence of peer teaching and early field experiences on
teaching efficacy beliefs of preservice educators in agriculture. Proceedings of the
National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New Orleans, LA, 28,
119-131.
Knobloch, N. A. (2002). Exploration of effects caused by the first ten weeks of the school
year on teacher efficacy of student teachers and novice teachers in agricultural
education in Ohio. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Knobloch, N. A. (2006). Exploring relationships of teachers’ sense of efficacy in two
student teaching programs. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 36-47. doi:
10.5032/jae.2006.02036
Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2002). Novice teachers’ perceptions of support,
teacher preparation quality, and student teaching experience related to teacher
efficacy. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27(3), 331-341.
Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2003a). Differences in teacher efficacy related to
career commitment of novice agriculture teachers. Journal of Career and
Technical Education, 20(1), 1-11.
Knobloch, N. A., & Whittington, M. S. (2003b). The influence of the initial ten weeks
ofthe school year of novice teacher efficacy in Agricultural Education. NACTA
Journal, 47(4), 16-21.
Layfield, K. D., Minor, V. C., & Waldvogel, J. A. (2001). Integrating science into
agricultural education: A survey of South Carolina teachers’ perceptions.
Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Conference, New
Orleans, LA, 28, 423 – 432.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Series: Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences. A Sage University Paper, No. 22.
Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of
Extension,21(5), 45-50.
72
Mundt, J. P., & Connors, J. J. (1999). Problems and challenges associated with the first
years of teaching agriculture: A framework for preservice and inservice
education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 40(1), 38-48.
Myers, B. E., Dyer, J. E., & Washburn, S. E. (2005). Problems facing beginning
agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(3), 47-55.
Parr, B. A., Edwards, M. C., & Leising, J. G. (2009). Selected effects of a curriculum
integration intervention on the mathematics performance of secondary students
enrolled in an agricultural power and technology course: An experimental study.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(1), 57-69.
Riggs, I., & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s
science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 65, 150-167.
Roberts, T. G., Harlin, J. F., & Ricketts, J. C. (2006). A longitudinal examination of
teaching efficacy of agricultural science student teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 47(2), 81-92. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.02081
Roberts, T. G., Mowen, D. L., Edgar, D. W., Harlin, J. F., & Briers, G. E. (2007)
Relationships between personality type and teaching efficacy of student teachers.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(2), 92-102. doi: 10.5032/jae.2007.02092.
Rocca, S. J., & Washburn, S. G. (2006). Comparison of teacher efficacy among
traditionally and alternatively certified agriculture teachers. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 47(3), 58-69. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.03058
Rodriguez, J. F. (1997). Self-efficacy of preservice and beginning agricultural education
teachers in Ohio. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University,
Columbus.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology
Teacher,68(4). 20-26
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,
26, 207-231.
Stripling, C. (2005). Pre-service agricultural education teachers’ sense of teaching
efficacy. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Georgia, Athens.
Stripling, C., Ricketts, J. C., Roberts, T. G., & Harlin, J. F. (2008). Preservice agricultural
education teachers’ sense of teaching self-efficacy. Journal of Agricultural
Education,49(4), 120-130. doi: 10.5032/jae.2008.04120
73
Swan, B. G. (2005). The relationship between the 2004 Ohio State University
Agricultural Education student teachers’ learning style, teacher heart, and
teacher sense of efficacy. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State
University, Columbus.
Swan, B. G., Wolf, K. J., & Cano, J. (2011). Changes is teacher self-efficacy from the
student teaching experience through the third year of teaching. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 52(2), 128-139. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.02128
Talbert, B. A., Camp, W. G., & Heath-Camp, B. (1994) A year in the lives of three
beginning agriculture teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(2), 31-36.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805. doi:
10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., (2007). The differential antecedents of selfefficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 23, 944-956. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and more. Review of Education Research, 68(2), 202-248. doi:
10.3102/00346543068002202
Velez, J. J., Foor, R. M., Simonsen, J. C., Birkenholz, R. J., Wolf, K. J., Foster, D. D., &
Epps, R. B. (2012). The Creation and Validation of the Individual Leadership
Trait Inventory. Presented at the 2012 Annual Association of Leadership
Educators Conference. Key West, Florida.
Watters, J. J., & Ginns, I. S., (1995). Origins of and changes in preservice teachers’
science teaching efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Wheeler, J., & Knobloch, N. A. (2006). Relationship of teacher and program variables to
beginning agriculture teachers’ sense of efficacy. Proceedings of the National
Agricultural Education Research Conference, Charlotte, NC, 33, 590-600.
Whittington, M. S., McConnell, E., & Knobloch, N. A. (2006). Teacher efficacy of
novice teachers in Agricultural Education in Ohio at the end of the school year.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(4), 26-38. doi: 10.5032/jae.2006.04027
Wolf, K. J. (2008). Agricultural education teacher self-efficacy: A descriptive study of
beginning agricultural education teachers in Ohio. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.
74
Wolf, K . J. (2011). Agricultural education perceived teacher self-efficacy: A descriptive
study of beginning agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 52(2), 163-176. doi: 10.5032/jae.2011.02163
Wolf, K. J., Foster, D. D., & Birkenholz, R. J. (2010). The relationship between teacher
self-efficacy and the professional development experiences of agricultural
education teacher candidates. Journal of Agricultural Education, 51(4), 38-48.
doi: 10.5032/jae.2010.04038
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and
beliefs about control. Journal of Education Psychology, 82(1), 81-91. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.81
Woolfolk Hoy, A. E. (2000). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
75
Appendix A
Questionnaire
76
Basic Teacher Information
Answer the following questions by circling the response that best answers the
question.
Are you currently a school-based Agriculture teacher?
Yes
(Please circle your answer)
If “No” is selected, then skip to the end of survey
No
Answer the following questions using the scale provided.
(Please circle your answers)
How confident are you that you will be a school-based
Agriculture teacher in five (5) years?
How confident are you that you will be a school-based
Agriculture teacher in ten (10) years?
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
What year of teacher school-based Agriculture are you currently in?
(Please circle your answer)
First Year
Second Year
Fourth Year
Fifth Year
Third Year
Sixth Year or Higher
If “Sixth Year or Higher” is selected, then skip to the end of survey
Impact on Teaching
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following
had an impact on your instructional strategies.
Instructional Strategies: the approaches teachers take to
achieve the learning objectives. (examples: group work,
labs, debates)
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes in College
Student Teaching
Agricultural Education Based Professional Development
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
77
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following
had an impact on your classroom management.
Classroom Management: The process you use to ensure
classroom lessons run smoothly. (example: discipline
methods, preventative strategies)
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes in College
Student Teaching
Agricultural Education Based Professional Development
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following
had an impact on your ability to teach math.
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes in College
Student Teaching
Agricultural Education Based Professional Development
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following
had an impact on your ability to teach science.
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes in College
Student Teaching
Agricultural Education Based Professional Development
Please indicate the degree to which each of the following
had an impact on your ability to positively influence
students.
Agriculture Teacher Preparation Classes in College
Student Teaching
Agricultural Education Based Professional Development
78
Teacher Sense of Self Efficacy Scale
Efficacy is the ability to produce a desired or intended result.
Answer the following questions by circling the response that best answers the
question.
Instructional Strategies
Answer the following questions using the scale provided.
I can respond to difficult questions from my students.
I can gauge student comprehension of what I have taught.
I can craft good questions for my students.
I am able to adjust my lessons to the proper level for
individual students.
I can use a variety of assessment strategies.
I can provide an alternative explanation when students are
confused.
I am able to implement alternative strategies in my
classroom.
I can provide appropriate challenges for very capable
students.
Classroom Management
I can control disruptive behavior in the classroom.
I can make my expectations clear about student behavior.
I am able to establish routines to keep activities running
smoothly.
I can get children to follow classroom rules.
I can calm a student who is disruptive.
I can establish a classroom management system with each
group of students.
I can respond to defiant students.
Math Teaching Efficacy
I can give students concrete experiences in learning
mathematics.
I am able to connect mathematics to literature.
I can teach basic concepts of fractions.
I am able to teach algebra.
I can develop number sense in students.
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
79
I can facilitate students’ communication about mathematics 1
(through journals, discussions, etc.).
I can locate resources for planning mathematics lessons.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
Teacher Sense of Self Efficacy Scale Continued
Leadership of Students
Answer the following questions using the scale provided.
I can inspire students to do more than what is expected.
I can inspire students to perform at high levels.
I can convince students to change their behavior.
I can motivate students to achieve results.
I am able to bring out the strengths in students.
I can influence students to create change.
I am able to influence students to work as a team.
I am able to inspire students toward a shared goal.
Science Teaching Efficacy
When a student does better than usual in science, it is often
because the teacher exerted a little extra effort.
I am continually finding better ways to teach science.
When the science grades of students improve, it is most
often due to their teacher having found a more effective
teaching approach.
I know the steps necessary to teach science concepts
effectively.
I am very effective in monitoring science experiments.
If students are underachieving in science, it is most likely
due to ineffective science teaching.
The inadequacy of a student’s science background can be
overcome by good teaching.
The low science achievement of some students cannot
generally be blamed on their teachers.
When a low achieving student progresses in science, it is
usually due to extra attention given by the teacher.
I understand science concepts well enough to be effective
in teaching science.
Increased effort in science teaching produces little change
in some students’ science achievement.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
80
The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of 1
students in science.
Students’ achievement in science is directly related to their 1
teacher’s effectiveness in science teaching.
2
3
4
5
6
2
3
4
5
6
Demographic Information
For the following questions either write in or circle your response.
Please indicate your age:
Please indicate your sex:
Male
Female
Were you involved in a school-based Agriculture program
while you were in school?
What is the highest level of education you have
completed?
Yes
No
Did you receive your undergraduate degree in Agricultural
Education?
Bachelor’ Some
s Degree Graduate
Coursework
Master’s
Degree
PhD
Yes
No
If no,
please
specify in
the box to
the left.
If no, please specify:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Are you certified to teach a CASE (Curriculum for
Agricultural Science Education) course?
If yes which course/courses:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
How many teachers are in your local Agricultural
Education program?
What is the approximate number of students enrolled in
the agriculture program during the 2012-2013 school
year?
Are students eligible to receive science credit for
agriculture courses during the 2012-2013 school year?
Yes
No
If yes,
please
specify
which
course/co
urses in
the box to
the left.
Yes
No
81
What is the average class length (in minutes) for
Agriculture courses you are teaching in the 2012-2013
school year?
On average how many AgriScience labs do you complete
per week per Agriculture course?
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will be vital
for the research into how Agriculture Teacher education programs can better
prepare Agricultural Educators to be successful in this profession. Thank you again
for your time.
82
Appendix B
IRB Notice of Approval
83